On Friday, 7 November 2014 at 07:41:26 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
want to take explicitly. This has nothing to do with alias
this, but with identifier resolution in general. imported
symobl for instance, suffer from the same issue.
The diamond problem involves the desire to only have a single
inst
On Friday, 7 November 2014 at 07:12:58 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Friday, 7 November 2014 at 03:28:45 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Because the base "object" and delegated "object" are different
one, not the same being polymorphic.
That does not resolve conflicts with having the same base
pro
On Friday, 7 November 2014 at 03:28:45 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Because the base "object" and delegated "object" are different
one, not the same being polymorphic.
That does not resolve conflicts with having the same base
prototype or name conflicts in method names. Ignoring the issues
does not
On Thursday, 6 November 2014 at 22:15:25 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Thursday, 6 November 2014 at 21:56:39 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
In the other hand, alias this (or prototypal inheritance model
in
general) do not suffer from these issues. It also have some
good
use case like entity framework.
I'm curi
On Thursday, 6 November 2014 at 21:56:39 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
In the other hand, alias this (or prototypal inheritance model
in
general) do not suffer from these issues. It also have some good
use case like entity framework.
I'm curious as to how prototypical inheritance avoids the diamond
i
On Thursday, 6 November 2014 at 15:25:11 UTC, Patrick Jeeves
wrote:
On Thursday, 6 November 2014 at 08:04:33 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad
wrote:
On Thursday, 6 November 2014 at 00:50:23 UTC, bearophile wrote:
I think not giving language support means that D designers
don't want it to be easy to do
On Thursday, 6 November 2014 at 15:25:11 UTC, Patrick Jeeves
wrote:
I don't really see how multiple alias this is better or worse
than multiple inheritance.
It is worse because:
1. When you design a class hierarchy with multiple inheritance
you don't reuse something made for another purpose,
On Thursday, 6 November 2014 at 08:04:33 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Thursday, 6 November 2014 at 00:50:23 UTC, bearophile wrote:
I think not giving language support means that D designers
don't want it to be easy to do. And this is good.
Then why are they adding multiple alias this, wh
On Thursday, 6 November 2014 at 09:03:02 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Think of C++17/D2 as testbed entities that contain most
features, to test what works and what doesn't work, to create
successive languages that contain only the useful features :-)
:-) Yes, I view D2 as an experiment. And I view y
Ola Fosheim Grøstad:
I think D should either try to support programming in the large
or stop claiming that D aims to stop programming in the large
while not being willing to make the feature set suitable.
Think of C++17/D2 as testbed entities that contain most features,
to test what works an
On Thursday, 6 November 2014 at 08:38:53 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Ola Fosheim Grøstad:
Then why are they adding multiple alias this, which appears to
be worse?
The multiple alias this is being designed right now. If you
don't like the complexities it introduces, then it's a good
moment to exp
Ola Fosheim Grøstad:
Then why are they adding multiple alias this, which appears to
be worse?
The multiple alias this is being designed right now. If you don't
like the complexities it introduces, then it's a good moment to
express your concerns in that thread (I plan to not use multiple
al
On Thursday, 6 November 2014 at 00:50:23 UTC, bearophile wrote:
I think not giving language support means that D designers
don't want it to be easy to do. And this is good.
Then why are they adding multiple alias this, which appears to be
worse?
Patrick Jeeves:
To get mutliple inheritance. I just don't understand what the
purpose of not allowing multiple inheritance is if I can get
around it this easily, and its far less managable than it would
be if it had language support.
I think not giving language support means that D designer
On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 00:39:11 +, Patrick Jeeves wrote:
> So what's bothering me is that I can do this:
>
> class NullType {}
> class Monkey(T) : T {}
> class Zombie(T) : Monkey!T {}
> class Robot(T) : Monkey!T {}
> class Pirate(T) : Monkey!T {}
> class Ninja(T) : Monkey!T {}
>
> class Multi
15 matches
Mail list logo
